Here's some information about the other APA - The American Psychological Association:
Former APA President Condemns APA for Barring Research
"The APA is too goddamn politically correct...and too goddamn obeisant to special interests!" said Robert Perloff, 1985 President of the American Psychological Association.
Dr. Perloff delivered those uncensored remarks during a rousing speech to psychologists at the 2001 APA Annual Convention.
In an expression of public anger and frustration, Dr. Perloff condemned the APA's one-sided political activism. Of reorientation therapy with homosexuals, he said: "It is considered unethical...That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." (1)
Dr. Perloff is a recipient of the American Psychological Foundation's Gold Medal Award for Lifetime Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest. In bestowing the award, the Psychological Foundation recognized Perloff for his noted "love of social justice" and his career-long struggle to champion "the rights and dignity of women, minorities, and homosexuals."
But, Perloff asked, "How can you do research on change if therapists involved in this work are threatened with being branded as unethical?"
Contacted by NARTH, Dr. Perloff added the following comment in an interview:
"I believe that APA is flat out wrong, undemocratic, and shamefully unprofessional in denying NARTH the opportunity to express its views and programs in the APA Monitor and otherwise under APA's purview." (2)
"APA past presidents sounded off about what they think the field, and APA, ought to value in psychology's second century at APA's 2001 Annual Convention.
They advocated wildly divergent--sometimes controversial--goals for psychology, from dismantling organized religion to lifting the stricture on conversion therapy...
Robert Perloff, PhD (APA's 1985 president), of the University of Pittsburgh, unabashedly charged that APA is "too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests." He called on APA to ease strictures against:
Conversion therapy. "It is considered unethical....That's all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research."
APA Monitor Online - Letters, VOLUME 30 , NUMBER 8 September 1999:
"IN HIS JUNE 9 LETTER TO REP. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) discussing an article by Rind, Tromovitch and Bauserman (1998), Dr. Raymond Fowler, speaking for APA, asserts:
"We acknowledge our social responsibility...to take into account not only the scientific merit of articles but also their implication for public policy....Clearly the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held position on child welfare...issues....Three inconsistencies between the conclusions the authors suggest and positions of the association should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future....We are strengthening procedures within the association to assure that journal editors will fully consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics."
This new editorial policy effectively transforms APA's "stated and deeply held positions" into religious dogma, immune from empirical or logical refutation. Any scientifically sound paper presenting empirical data or reasoned argument contrary to APA public policy positions will be rejected by the 37 journals published by APA on the grounds of its "potential for misinforming the public policy process." APA's public policies will reign unchallenged.
Fowler has it backwards. Scientific findings should help determine public policies, not the reverse. The flap over this article demonstrates yet again that the social policy stands of APA are dictated more by the ideology of its leadership than by science.
Gerald E. Zuriff, Ph.D
Cambridge, Mass.
And here's an excerpt from the letter that follows Dr. Zuriff's:
"... Such statements point to a political agenda that we are seeing all too frequently in APA journals..."
A. Dean Byrd, PhD
American Fork, UtahS. Brent Scharman, PhD
Salt Lake City, UtahEd D. Lauritsen, PhD
Phoenix, Ariz.
"We acknowledge our social responsibility...to take into account not only the scientific merit of articles but also their implication for public policy....Clearly the article included opinions of the authors that are inconsistent with APA's stated and deeply held position on child welfare...issues....Three inconsistencies between the conclusions the authors suggest and positions of the association should have caused us to evaluate the article based on its potential for misinforming the public policy process. This is something we failed to do, but will do in the future....We are strengthening procedures within the association to assure that journal editors will fully consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics."
Stalinist psychologists would love this guy. He admits the primacy of policy over basic research, and takes the oath to defend APA's queer orthodoxy. I bellyfeel plusgood duckspeakers.
Thanks for the pings, EdReform, and that was quite a read about GLSEN. Seeing that they have a program coming up in April in the schools, I'm going to pass that post to a retired school administratrix I know who will be quite willing to answer awkward questions about GLSEN's programs in my home town. I'm sure they have a big one; Houston is one of the official "gay meccas" of North America, and they've been very active in city politics for at least 25 years. Former Houston mayor Kathryn J. Whitmire used to turn in her monthly report card to the assembled Gay Political Caucus in Montrose fern bars back in the 80's.
Schools should let their students know that the differences between the homosexual and heterosexual cultures are many and profound, contrary to assertions by homosexual advocacy groups who seek to portray homosexuality as something innate and essentially without risk, a leading psychological group said...
The mailing "seeks to correct the misinformation that is being promoted by these homosexual advocacy groups that have an incredible influence on the public education system," said Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH and a proponent of reparative therapy for homosexuals who want to change.
"What we're trying to say to school supervisors is, 'don't just rely on pro-gay information sources to make your decisions.' All our stuff is well grounded scientifically," he said. NARTH is a non-religious scientific organization whose 1,000 members include psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists...
The mailing goes out to the same school officials who were targeted in 1999 with a pamphlet entitled "Just the Facts," written by a coalition that included the American Psychological Association (APA).
The APA pamphlet encouraged schools not to inform students that therapy exists to diminish homosexuality and not to refer such students to counselors who will reflect their own family's deeply held values.
"NARTH was so incensed by the misinformation and untruths provided in the APA pamphlet that it immediately took on the task of raising the necessary funds required to compile, print and distribute" the mailing, Nicolosi said.
"Homosexual advocacy groups have been masterful in their ability to reframe what is essentially a health issue to a human rights issue, and when you talk human rights, everyone gets paranoid," he said.
"When you introduce the possibility of change, you introduce the possibility of freedom to choose, and when you do that, you undermine the foundation of the gay agenda," he added...
An excerpt from "American Psychology: The Political Science" by Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D.
Ray W. Johnson, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and founding member of the University of North Texas Psychology Department, as well as Training Director of the school's APA-accredited Counseling Psychology program. He is the co-author of a book on individual assessment and has published papers on personality, marital and family issues. In 1991 he founded Psychologists for a Free A.P.A. for the purpose of ending A.P.A. advocacy on social-moral issues.
"It will be recognized immediately that this title is an exaggeration. There are large numbers of psychologists, uncontaminated by doctrinaire politics, who continue to search for the basic processes which constitute our psychological lives. They also seek to determine the most effective interventions to change the activity of those processes to better the lives of others.
The title refers to organized psychology: the American Psychological Association. APA, like many groups involved in human service delivery, has been seized by political activists who have little regard for science or the democratic process. Since the seventies, the American Psychological Association has lobbied the government, filed court briefs, and engaged in and promoted boycotts on behalf of a host of social-moral causes. These causes have included ERA, unrestricted abortion (including abortion for children without parental notification and consent), sex and racial-ethnic discrimination, and homosexual politics.
Recently, homosexual politics have taken the forefront. APA council voted to threaten with boycotts states whose citizens passed APA disapproved laws regarding homosexuality. It has supported efforts to introduce programs into the public schools to reduce prejudice aimed at so-called "gay, lesbian and bisexual youth" or "prehomosexual" children. APA has refused military advertising in the APA Monitor because of the military's position regarding gays in the military. It has entered court to support Political Science homosexual parenting. Most recently, NARTH tasted the censors boot when the APA Monitor refused to print a notice of its meetings. The reason? "NARTH"s position on homosexuality is in direct conflict with APA's position on the issue, and is also in conflict with current research findings on sexual orientation" (Farberman, 1995). In short, APA has employed coercion to enforce its politics and restricted the flow of information so necessary for science to function objectively. Sadly, APA does all this with no scientific basis for predicting the effect on society of adopting APA's approved programs. It was because APA engaged in these grossly unscientific and partisan activities that Psychologists for a Free APA was organized. Free APA takes no position on any social-moral-political issue. Its major purpose is to stop the American Psychological Association from taking advocacy positions on those issues.
It is hoped that all sides of these issues are represented in the organization. We support:
- The publication and dissemination of scientific research for the purpose of the advancement of science and the understanding of social-psychological processes. The most appropriate vehicles for the professional dissemination of scientific research are the scientific-professional journals of the social sciences.
- The right of psychologists as individuals and as groups of individuals to advocate and promote any social-moral-political issues in which they believe. Such individuals and Political Science groups, however, should not speak for The American Psychological Association.
The fundamental concern is that psychologists present themselves as professionals who are scientists or at least who base their practice on their science. Science is an enterprise which requires openness and questioning. When a scientific organization takes up politics and advocates for one side of a scientific issue, it declares the theoretical and scientific dialogue closed. It smothers science. It assumes that it not only knows what is, but also how things should be.
The reality is that APA doesn't have the answers. In science there is always another question. Advocacy politics, on the other hand, require an assumption that truth has been found and therefore, it is time to spread it through the law, public policy, intimidation and propaganda.
In order to maintain the pretense of science, the American Psychological Association presents the results of research projects which support its politics. However, the limitations of the research are not emphasized which results in (a) overgeneralizing of data; (b) ignoring or misrepresenting research results contrary to its politics; and (c) using poorly conceived research to support its positions. To courts, legislatures, lay people, and professionals unschooled in research, this looks like science. This "appearance of science" approach to advocacy is evidenced in all the major areas for which APA has taken an advocacy stance. It tends to turn meanings upside down. For example, the statement "There is no evidence that...no longer means that we don't know, it now means that we should move ahead with what we are promoting.
A paper recently published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology ( Haldeman, 1994) was entitled "The Practice and Ethics of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy." In the abstract, the author states, "The literature in psychotherapeutic and religious conversion therapies is reviewed, showing no evidence indicating that such treatments are effective in their intended purpose." He also called for research on the potential harmful effects of such treatments. Note the scientific attitude. He did not call for research to determine if there was a potentially harmful effect. Or if therapy for this purpose is more harmful than therapy for other purposes. Essentially, the article serves to discredit efforts of therapists to help unhappy homosexuals to change their sexual orientation.
Assuming that Haldeman represents the current thinking of APA and homosexual advocates, it can be shown by using quotations from the writings of advocates, that APA, in it's advocacy for homosexual causes, has no scientific basis for doing so and is operating in the dark. This opinion is based on the following interrelated notions (1) there is no generally accepted scientific definition of homosexuality; (2) APA's efforts to gain protected minority status for homosexuals are not based on any scientific evidence that homosexuality is of the same order as, for example, sex and race; (3) there is no solid body of research based homosexuals; (4) there is evidence that conversion therapy works for some people called homosexual; and (5) there is no convincing evidence that efforts to provide conversion therapy should be considered unethical. I will address each of these points. In the quotations which follow the emphases are mine...
... So, APA without a definition to guide its activity is blindly trying to impose its will on society by attacking citizens who oppose its view. There is no scientific procedure which would enable APA to predict the future for such a fluid condition in a changing context...
APA and Homosexuality as a Protected Minority
The above quotations point to the second reason APA advocacy is political. On what basis does APA seek to have what it calls homosexuals declared a protected minority? There is no satisfactory scientific definition for the construct. The condition is variable and subject to change through a number of influences. Has any other group been granted this status under the same conditions? These laws have been previously applied to conditions (e.g., sex or race) which were clearly outside the control of the persons involved and were not changeable. Our quotations indicate that these conditions do not apply to homosexuals. With no science, and questionable legal grounds, APA's advocacy for homosexuals to attain the status of a protected minority is merely twisted, political activity.
Lack of Research
The problem of definition points to the third reason APA advocacy is politically motivated. APA asserts that its advocacy is driven by research (Tomes, H.,1993). Haldeman (1994) claims that "It is, ..., well within psychology's purview to disseminate accurate information from our considerable database about homosexuality" (p. 226). However, since there has been no adequate delineation of the construct and since the condition is variable, how could APA develop such a pool of scientific research? According to Gonsiorek (1991) "Research on homosexuality has been characterized by poor and biased sampling procedures and vague, erroneous, or simplistic assumptions about the definition of homosexuality" (p. 123). Is there a considerable database? The answer is embedded in criticisms of conversion research.
Conversion Therapy
APA is opposed to conversion therapy...
The Ethics of Conversion
... Much of the argument for the abandonment of conversion therapy is based on the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM, thus, according to Haldeman's (1994) quote from APA (1975), "...removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with homosexual orientations." The major ethical arguments are contained in the following...
... It is debatable whether the 1973 decision should be considered evidence that homosexuality is "not an illness" or that it is normal. In the absence of lesions, chemical influences, parasites, bacteria, viruses, unequivocal genetic or brain anomalies, the decision as to what constitutes an illness is subject to the interpretation of existing research and personal opinion i.e., a political decision. It is decided by vote. This is the case with homosexuality. Gonsiorek (1991) concludes that "...the issue of whether homosexuality per se is a sign of psychopathology, psychological maladjustment, or disturbance has been answered, and the answer is that it not" (p. 135). However, the work he cites to support this position simply shows that homosexuals do not exhibit symptoms associated with other socially defined pathological conditions. Whatever may be the facts with regard to whether homosexuality is intrinsically pathological, large numbers of American citizens believe it to be undesirable and believe that its normalization would have deleterious effects...
It is clear that both APA's have ignored the absence of research on the potential social impact of the normalization of homosexuality. The American Psychological Association, which claims to be a scientific organization, is especially guilty because it has approved launching attacks on states in which its homosexual agenda has been thwarted...
In conclusion, using the words of homosexual advocates, it has been shown that there is no sound scientific basis for APA adopting its advocacy stance for homosexual politics. Furthermore, it has been shown that there is no scientific justification for attacks on therapists who attempt to help unhappy homosexuals try to change their sexual orientation. Without science, APA advocacy simply represents another prejudice.
APA is a very large, rich organization. In collaboration with other groups seeking radical social change, APA wields its power to impose its prejudice upon American citizens. The history of such collaborations are ominous. Whether the zealots joined wear brown shirts, pink triangles, or raise the clenched fist of radical feminism, when professional and scientific organizations embrace their cause, the scientific enterprise dies and is replaced by propaganda and coercion."